The Militarization of Police...A good thing?

[Ruger480]

How do you propose maintaining the safety of officers doing their duty while removing the extra armor and protection afforded by their equipment and tactics?

I don't think anyone is looking to take away "bullet proof" vests but at the same time, we're not about to give them armored Humvees and full auto M4s for patrol either.

The image of a black hummer with a light bar on top, slowly cruising my neighborhood streets does not rest well with me.

[patriotic]

A tad off topic. I recall many years ago a naval officer did a survey of the Marines at Camp Pendelton. He ask if you were given an order to go out in the community and collect all their firearms, would you obey the order? The majority of the junior enlisted and officers said yes. the senior enlisted and middle grade officers had very unkind words about the order and anyone that gave such an order. What happened in the aftermath of Katrina I think would give any LEO a pause to consider such an order.

I am really surprised by that. Although I am former military and working as a civilian at an Air Force base I find it hard to believe our military would follow an unlawful order to disarm law abiding citizens and violate their constitutional rights; after all they took an oath to “protect and defend” the constitution from all enemies “foreign and domestic”. When I was in basic training and schooled in the UCMJ they were very specific about obeying “lawful” orders. Have we eliminated that kind of training? Haven’t we learned that “just following orders” is no excuse for illegal actions?__________________

[Merad]

The issue isn’t necessarily “militarization” but lack of proper training, oversight and accountability.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem begins to looks like a nail...

The biggest problem is the war on drugs. End it, already. We don't particularly care if people want to ruin their lives with alcohol (a very powerful drug in its own right), why should pot be any different?

[tyme]

Originally Posted by manta49

The people that think the police should not be militarized, would they feel the same if they were the ones coming up against individuals like in the bank of America shootout.

How does militarization help deal with a situation like the Bank of America shootout? What was needed, other than people who had rifles and could shoot them, from better cover than squad cars? I don't think any of us is against police having rifles.

[JimDandy]

I don't think any of us is against police having rifles.

Aside from people already complaining about M4's and Barrett 50s? You think they wouldn't also object to LAPD with an M24 or it's M2010 upgrade? Let alone the stand-off headshots required to end the Bank Robbery since we seem to also object to a 50 BMG rifle to the engine block?

I don't think anyone is looking to take away "bullet proof" vests but at the same time, we're not about to give them armored Humvees and full auto M4s for patrol either

Body Armor wasn't a militarization of the police forces? Quite possibly one of the first of them? Is bullet proof glass on the patrol cars also "armor"? Do you object to bullet resistant patrol cars providing them cover? Why does it matter if the "car" was made by Ford, Chevy or AMC?

[Ruger480]

Do you object to bullet resistant patrol cars providing them cover? Why does it matter if the "car" was made by Ford, Chevy or AMC?

To answer the first question: no.
To answer the second: it has to do with the mindset of the person driving and their interpretation of their job arising from the items they are issued.

[gyvel]

The people that think the police should not be militarized, would they feel the same if they were the ones coming up against individuals like in the bank of America shootout.

This is not a new phenomenon. "Shootouts" have occurred all through the history of this country as well as others. Two that come to mind are the Barrow gang and Ma Barker's group.

Dealing with isolated instances like you mention are not a justification of a militarization of the police.

[ronl]

Do I agree with the militarization of the police? Absolutely not. Almost daily, there are stories of abuse of power by police forces around the country. It a subject that deeply disturbs me. There is simply no excuse good enough to justify the taking of a single innocent life, period. Rules for use of units such as SWAT need to be defined absolutely and adhered to strictly. There is absolutely no need for no-knock raids, and they should be eliminated. There should be some type of local oversight established, using ordinary citizens, with the power to weed out those whose egos are too big for police work. There should be a zero tolerance policy concerning abuse of any type coming from police. They should set the standard for behavior, and that standard should be very high. How would you feel if it were your child, or wife, maimed or killed in the service of a warrant at the wrong address? We were just doing our job is of little consolation at that point, and it is an absolute lie, as at that point it is clearly obvious that someone wasn't.

[JimDandy]

Do I agree with the militarization of the police? Absolutely not.

As it's already been pointed out that body armor is itself a militarization of the police forces, should we take that to mean you want to remove body armor?

Do you object to a police helicopter flying over the interstates. cities, and towns "quarterbacking" high speed chases, vectoring ground units to unsafe drivers, and so on?

Global Positioning technology?

Scrambled radio transmissions?

Any sort of firearms at all as it's fairly common for the police forces to adopt current or previous Armed Forces firearms, especially side arms, for multiple reasons, not the least of which was cost and familiarity.

[motorhead0922]

I think the litmus test is this: If ordinary citizens (i.e. civilians) are prohibited from owning and operating the equipment, then police (i.e. civilians) can't own and operate that same equipment either.

[JimDandy]

Originally Posted by Ruger480

To answer the second: it has to do with the mindset of the person driving and their interpretation of their job arising from the items they are issued.

You really want to hang your hat on that argument? The same argument that says anyone with an AR-15 is bound to go on a shooting spree because of the mindset that goes with having it? The same argument that suggests anyone with a 1911 will think they're a former Navy Intelligence operative living in Hawaii with a depressing predilection for narrating their life, Hawaiian shirts, and picking locks to enable breaking and entering for their PI job?

How exactly do we claim it's an inanimate object when it's our property, but a driving force in their actions when it's not? Well, how do we do it without being laughed out of the room for hypocrisy?

[manta49]

How does militarization help deal with a situation like the Bank of America shootout? What was needed, other than people who had rifles and could shoot them, from better cover than squad cars?

What about bullet proof cars like they use here to give cover, is that militarization. ?

This is not a new phenomenon. "Shootouts" have occurred all through the history of this country as well as others. Two that come to mind are the Barrow gang and Ma Barker's group.

Yes and the police reacted after being out gunned by acquiring sub machine guns and BAR automatic rifles, they have to be armed to meat the threat.

[Fishing_Cabin]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

How exactly do we claim it's an inanimate object when it's our property, but a driving force in their actions when it's not? Well, how do we do it without being laughed out of the room for hypocrisy?

That's the issue with this debate as I see it. The debate cuts both ways.

One issue I feel is ignored regularly on when looking at this and similar issues is how funding has slowly changed over time. Years ago, such essential services (fire/police/streets) where funded properly for the most part to ensure a basic level of staffing and equipment. There wasn't a question of not funding these areas years ago. Now, these same essential services are having to compete with non-essential services for funds so there is a need to substantiate the reason for this or that. People like free stuff when they are receiving it, so cut fire because My house hasn't burned, or police because I haven't been hit by a thief.

Add to that grant funding, and the military trying to get rid of equipment, while some agencies are scrapping to get by and it makes for odd solutions.

[Ruger480]

How exactly do we claim it's an inanimate object when it's our property, but a driving force in their actions when it's not? Well, how do we do it without being laughed out of the room for hypocrisy?

Again, it has to do with the mentality of those in a particular situation. It is not so black and white as your question would appear to make it.

You do not know that it is not a driving force in their actions.

I cherry picked this from Ron Pauls' "Farewell to Congress Speech"

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.” They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.” The minority, or victims of government violence, never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.

You can read the whole speech here

It is the first line in particular that I am focusing on. Gun owners are not under the illusion that because of their position, they are right. We know that if we initiate a conflict, we won't be let off the hook because of our occupation.

[JimDandy]

You do not know that it is not a driving force in their actions.

Which establishes it is said driving force how? Or differentiates it from the arguments used against us as I just showed how? You're still claiming motivation A results from Possession B. How do we honestly claim the logic is faulty when applied to our firearms, but fly's wing accurate when applied to a truck?

[Ruger480]

How do we honestly claim the logic is faulty when applied to our firearms, but fly's wing accurate when applied to a truck

I have yet to see a situation where the presence of a Humvee would have made the difference in saving lives or apprehending a BG. If they can prove they need it, I won't object.
Bullet resistant glass: ok
M4s: ok
Vests: ok
Trucks designed for serious off road use: not so much.

And yes, I do need access to the same firearms used by my government, for reasons to numerous to list here.

I would like to add that I really like the statement in post #42.

[A400 Fan]

I would like to add that I really like the statement in post #42.

I agree. My dad was NYPD in the 50-80s time frame and for the first half, he was on foot patrol. He got to know everyone in his area-kids, parents, store owners, etc. That type of proactive patrol went a LONG way to help keep crime down. Police need to focus on prevention, not acting like a military response team.

[johnelmore]

You will never see an armored vehicle or a humvee on patrol because a chief would never choose that vehicle. Its not reliable, huge gas guzzler and too slow not to mention uncomfortable. In fact most armored vehicles are usually taken to the fight on huge flatbeds. I doubt you will ever see a humvee on patrol.

[Pilot]

I don't like it, as it sets a tone of us against them. In addition it is a waste of taxpayer dollars even if the Feds "give" them to state, and local law enforcement. We've paid for them once, now we pay for them again in operating expenses, and maintenance. These are huge dollars as they must run, and practice using them. The LEO's will say they are free, but they are far from it.

[leadcounsel]

I think police should have the tools and equipment needed to enforce reasonable and popular laws, using reasonable measures, where people are innocent until proven guilty.

That is the starting point.

Now, where does stacked units of men armed with M4s and MP5s and night vision, doing an Iraq style raid on a home at 2am, shooting pets and throwing people on the ground, shooting anyone who is armed inside... where exactly does that fall in the 'innocent until proven guilty American citizen with Constitutional Rights' spectrum? Is a drug dealer really MORE dangerous or costly to society than such raids, done by the tens or hundreds of thousands every year across the nation? I would suggest the MORE dangerous activity is a violent military style raid, endangering innocents and violating rights is far more damaging to society than a drug dealer.

I've also said often that the war on drugs is the biggest threat to liberty and the 4th and 2nd Amendments. Both of which have repeatedly been eroded on the guise of this 'war on drugs.' Read up on it. All major search and seizure defeats, and gun control, are premised on drugs/prohibition.

Police should serve and protect. We see too much abuse today.

Standard patrol police should have weapons to do their job, and respond to bad situations. Nobody wants a cop to be outgunned. That means vests, pistols, long guns, and training and backup. Yes, military style SWAT is needed to respond to high threat situations, as they arise. Terrorism, LA Bank robberies, riots, etc.

But the mentality of the police as demonstrated through no knock raids, or abusing and beating people, or ignoring rights, etc. has got to change. It's not the equipment necessarily, it's the mentality.

But I do agree that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

[zxcvbob]

But I do agree that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

And if you can't find a nail, you create one so you can use your shiny new hammer.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

What irks me even more, is the seeming lockstep defense when one(or more) of these "warriors" screws up, and injures or kills innocent people. Do they ever get really punished? if so, we don't hear much about it.

Does anyone know if anyone who was involved in the Ruby Ridge operation was actually punished? The whole fiasco was over, what, two sawed off shotguns? In any case, incidents like that get my vote of no to militarization of police.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

As it's already been pointed out that body armor is itself a militarization of the police forces, should we take that to mean you want to remove body armor?

Do you object to a police helicopter flying over the interstates. cities, and towns "quarterbacking" high speed chases, vectoring ground units to unsafe drivers, and so on?

Global Positioning technology?

Scrambled radio transmissions?

Any sort of firearms at all as it's fairly common for the police forces to adopt current or previous Armed Forces firearms, especially side arms, for multiple reasons, not the least of which was cost and familiarity.

Like most issues, a definition might be useful. I suspect when most people think of militarization of the police, it would generally involve the use of most military vehicles and most military weapons, except perhaps military handguns or pump/semi shotguns.

[HiBC]

I graduated from high school 1970.The draft was an issue.I wrote a paper for a class about it.All volunteer Army vs draft.Before I get jumped,I was 17.

I wrote about a professional cadre,carrying skills and experience,infused with folks whose loyalty was to home,mom,apple pie,their neighborhood.The citizen soldier draftee maintains a certain balance.With them it is less likely we would ever have a military forcibly disarming civilians,for example.

I saw a danger in a military separated,isolated from the civilian population.Their own closed world.The Civilians become "other".
Us vs them is a different set of rules than "We".

I think this compliments what kraigwy said.Good if a cop is Steward of his neighborhood.Serve and protect..neighbors,friends,like people.

I wonder,if Columbine had happened at Mayberry...might Andy and Barney have handled it like one woman did at the New Life Church in Co Springs.

She took her handgun and headed toward the guy shooting the AR and stopped him.

Serve and protect.

With great respect,the military job is kill people and break things.The Patton approach.While I think there needs to be some capacity for this available,it should not be an LEO way of looking at the neighborhood.
I do see the police sniper as a valuable resource.

Shooting peoples dogs for barking at them,beating homeless people to death,gunning down campers and tossing grenades in cribs...the headlines tell me something is wrong.

[gyvel]

Yes and the police reacted after being out gunned by acquiring sub machine guns and BAR automatic rifles, they have to be armed to meat the threat.

Agreed, but my point was that these are relatively uncommon incidents and are no justification for militarization of the police. The resources should be available if needed, but 99% of the time they are NOT needed.